Capacity Building In Sub-Saharan Africa

TOWARDS A MORE STRATEGIC APPROACH TO CAPACITY BUILDING IN AFRICA

Executive Summary

Capacity Building: A Mixed Record And A Growing Development Imperative

Almost a quarter of the US $55 billion of total Overseas Development Assistance is accounted for by support for capacity building, mainly through technical assistance. Yet, despite substantial progress in reforming the overall policy environment in the developing world and the steady improvement in the quality of project lending, development outcomes are still falling short of expectations, especially in Africa. Much of this shortfall is attributable to lagging capacity development, defined as the ability of people, institutions, and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives. Our partners in the donor community, and many of our clients, share this assessment. In reviewing the costs of numerous failures of capacity building efforts, a 1993 UNDP report Rethinking Technical Cooperation - Reforms for Capacity Building in Africa observed that “in few areas of policy are the costs of inaction or misguided action more far reaching.” A 1996 OED report, noting that Sub-Saharan Africa had received 20% and 32% of free-standing TA in Bank loans and credits during FY70-95 and FY91-95 respectively, attributed disappointing outcomes to governance problems and weak management (of both TA providers and recipients). Six years later, the OED Review of IDA 10-12, covering 1994-2000, argued that IDA could have had greater development impact over this period had more attention been paid to capacity building.

Since 1998, two new drivers have multiplied the imperative for more effective efforts to support capacity building. First, PRSPs, as an increasingly widespread approach being adopted mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, have unleashed new and broader demands for capacity building. World Bank/IMF Board reviews of the PRSP in 2002 underscore the lack of capacity and, perhaps more importantly, the inability to use existing capacity effectively, as constraining preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of PRSPs. This assessment does not view capacity building merely as a technical exercise, but as rooted in the political economy of the country. Second, MDGs, by setting specific development targets to be achieved by 2015, are contributing to demands, not only for more effective capacity building, but also for these efforts to be more directly linked to results. Thus, an understanding of the sources of current weaknesses, as well as of how incentives change behavior, is critical to fully address the challenges of the PRSP movement and to enhance the realism of achieving the MDGs.

Within the Bank, a rethinking of our approach to capacity building dates back to the 1997 World Development Report, The State in a Changing World, and a follow-up study Reforming Public Institutions and Strengthening Governance: A World Bank Strategy (2000). Over the past two years, there has been an intensified critical scrutiny among donors on approaches to capacity building, in close dialogue with clients and researchers, with the UNDP playing an important role. A growing consensus is now emerging globally that capacity development is a long-term process, rarely amenable to seeking quick results through shortcuts. It is, above all, an endogenous course of action that builds on existing capacities and assets. As an endogenous voluntary process, capacity development can be supported or distorted by external interventions. Furthermore, to be successful, capacity development needs to take place at three cross-linked levels: the individual, institutional, as well as societal levels.

A central element of this consensus is that capacity develops and takes root where incentives - monetary and non-monetary - are favorable, and dwindles or drains where they are perverse. These incentives shape the demand for capacity, as when governance arrangements enable user, parliamentary, and citizen oversight to hold governments accountable for performance. Incentives also sustain the supply of national capacity, as when pay policies reward highly-skilled professionals for remaining in the African public sector, and the enabling environment for private investment harnesses domestic entrepreneurial skills, rather than adding to ‘brain-drain’. As with the effectiveness of overall development assistance, ownership, local championship, commitment, and strong leadership are seen in this emerging consensus as prerequisites for sustainable capacity development. On the external side, the gap filling approach that tended to be donor driven needs to be replaced by a more “organic” approach that nurtures existing capacities. For this to happen, convergence of donors within a CDF-type approach around national priorities, budgets, and systems – such as the PRSP - is essential along with

alignment of their support to capacity building within country-owned programs.

Operationalizing these shifts in thinking remains a challenge. But, evidence suggests that new approaches to supporting capacity building in Africa are being favored by growing instances of political liberalization and attention to good governance. On the supply side, the donor harmonization agenda which is currently gathering momentum opens new avenues for countries to work with development partners to streamline support to capacity building to make it more cost-effective, results oriented and country owned. AFR’s Africa Assistance Strategy (ASAF), currently under preparation, explicitly recognizes the importance of operationalizing an effective approach to capacity building as a cross-cutting theme, supporting its four pillars: governance and institutional reform; human development; growth through PSD and competitiveness; and improving aid effectiveness with a focus on results. Recent initiatives in the Africa region embody new approaches to supporting capacity building in three vital areas – improved expenditure accountability; frontline service delivery; and regional partnerships. While confirming progress in supporting capacity building under ASAF pillars, these examples underscore the challenge of a strategic and comprehensive approach to capacity building and of scaling up results rapidly to enhance Africa’s prospects of attaining the MDGs.

Recent progress: improved expenditure accountability, frontline service delivery, and regional partnerships

Improving expenditure accountability – the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and timeliness of, as well as public access to information on how public monies are used, plus capacity for oversight – is a critical area for AFR support to capacity building. In recent years, the Africa region has worked on multiple fronts to help build the capacities of expenditure accountability systems. The following examples reflect both the democratization of African countries (which brings parliamentary and citizen oversight to center stage), and the increased effort to transfer donor resources to African countries on a more fungible basis (via HIPC, PRSCs, and other forms of programmatic lending):

·  Benchmarking the expenditure control systems of all 22 HIPC African countries since 2001, led by the Bank but jointly with IMF and validated by country counterparts, emphasizing capacity to track poverty-related spending, and presented to Bank/IMF Boards, now being updated annually;

·  Improvements in expenditure accountability systems strongly featured in PRSCs in Burkina Faso and Uganda, as well as in pre-PRSC credits in other countries.

·  New or on-going operations to help build expenditure management and accountability capacity (Ghana, Malawi, Congo-Brazzaville, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar and Zambia); newer operations focus on building oversight capacity, including parliamentary oversight committees, supreme audit institutions, and civil society watchdog organizations.

Improving Capacity for front-line service delivery: As part of the broader movement towards programmatic lending, AFR has been developing a new, multisectoral operational approach for providing IDA (and bilateral) resources to help build capacity for improved service delivery. This approach typically comprises: (i) country-level clarification of the institutional arrangements for service delivery (balance between centralized and decentralized, public versus private etc.); (ii) support for individual ministries, departments and agencies to develop restructuring and capacity building plans (including service delivery benchmarking surveys and performance agreements); and (iii) programmatic provision of finance to ministries and agencies to implement their approved capacity building plans. The approach has proceeded furthest in Tanzania with 58 ministries, departments, and agencies participating, 15 having completed service delivery charters. Based on progress thus far, the Tanzanians expect to provide about US$20 million over the next 18 months to finance the capacity building plans of the participating agencies. IDA is supporting similar programs in five other countries – Guinea, Mozambique, Uganda, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso

Catalyzing sectoral results: A recent WBI co-sponsored review of successful cases of capacity building worldwide, supported by the Bank or other partners, tied these efforts to clear-cut and dramatic improvements in organizational performance. Three sector-specific successes in Africa stood out with clear outcomes and institutional strengthening:

·  turnaround of the water and sewerage utility company in Uganda

: (300% rise in staff productivity, 60% rise in profits, 20% rise in service coverage, in one year)

· 

·  liberalization of telecommunications in Mauritania: (10% equivalent of GDP in additional private investment, 6,000 new informal sector jobs, 16-fold increase in telephone penetration, effective regulatory body, all within two years)

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

·  improved environmental management in Lake Victoria in programs involving Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania (Lake Hyacinth levels reduced by 90% in 3 years).

These and other cases, such as in Community Driven Development (CDD) - where harnessing private sector and civil society capacity is also essential - confirm that capacity enhancement and results in the relatively short term can be mutually compatible and reinforcing, when the “space” is created for learning on a "just-in-time" basis, in small bites, and at a pace controlled by users. A focus on skill retention strategies is essential, as confirmed, for example, in the health sector (based on on-going studies by the Bank and partners like WHO, OECD, DFID, and others), as well as other sectors. While capacity building can demonstrably contribute to achieving short-term results, these must be sustained within an expanded drive for boosting organizational performance and continually linked to a national effort for scale-up of development impact. This requires sustained leadership commitment at specific organizational as well as at national levels and a long-term view by development partners.

The Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa: Initiated by African leaders, PACT is based on the principle of ownership, leadership, and partnership within Africa - among governments, civil society, and the private sector - and with national, multi-lateral and bilateral donors. Since 1999, when the World Bank agreed to make available up to $150 million of grant financing, to be implemented by the Africa Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF), PACT has attracted an incremental $100 million for capacity building from bilateral donors. Its capacity building interventions focus on six core areas of economic governance – economic policy analysis (the exclusive pre-1999 focus); financial management; statistics; public administration; professionalization of the ‘policy voices’ of civil society and the private sector; and parliaments. Policy analysis (where the ACBF is recognized as having been an important catalyst of improved economic policymaking capacity, continent-wide) represents 60% of the portfolio, with 40% on the other core competencies. A February 2003 independent mid-term evaluation reported that in three years PACT commitments have increased three-fold and disbursements doubled to just under $20 million annually. Working closely with the NEPAD Secretariat, ACBF is positioning itself as the capacity building arm of the Africa-led NEPAD initiative. These and other Bank-supported regional partnerships e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program (SSATP), and African Economic Research Consortium (AERC), will remain a key part of capacity building efforts in Africa over the medium term.

Building on early progress

These examples of capacity building for expenditure accountability and service delivery are promising, and short-term results in specific areas are possible. It is clear, however, that a much more comprehensive and strategic approach is needed for economy-wide and sustainable impact. To sustain efforts which are conducive to retaining and utilizing, not just imparting skills, and to go beyond the training of individuals, a continuous dialogue must be nurtured which puts the onus squarely on the demand side. Basing difficult governance policy choices on what truly matters and demonstrably works, and fostering a culture of constant evaluation and learning in the public sector, coupled with implanting effective mechanisms for accountability and beneficiary voice, are fundamental to a demand-driven approach to capacity building. Only thus can existing and new skills be retained and utilized, and can support to capacity building in areas such as monitoring and evaluation realistically help lead to sustainable development outcomes.

A road map for the future

To build on the early progress described above, an approach which can scale up the contributions of capacity building to attain the MDGs in Africa should cut across the four ASAF pillars by: (i) embedding support to capacity building within a demand-led dialogue based on governance and institutional reforms; (ii) supporting human development by quality education and emphasizing utilization and retention of existing capacities; (iii) catalyzing capacity development through use of market mechanisms and private initiative; and (iv) linking support to capacity building with results framed within country-owned programs which also align the efforts of donors and other partners, including regional capacity building institutions.